Sharada J. Chougule vs The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner is the widow of an erstwhile employee of the respondent. He had joined the services of the Ex-Licensee Company, in the year 1961, a predecessor in interest of the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, which is the predecessor of the Karnataka Electricity Board. He died in an accident while on duty on 23.07.1978. The petitioner had requested the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board for payment of pension. She was informed that as there were litigation pending before this court, that her request could be taken into consideration only after disposal of those cases. In July, 2003, the petitioner had learnt that the pending litigation which was referred to by the employer of her husband, had been decided in favour of the widows of employees of Karnataka Electricity Board in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 35639/1993 dated 06.03.1996. Therefore, the petitioner had made a demand on the respondent by issuing a legal notice dated 04.08.2003 reiterating her demand. It is further claimed that there was no response from the respondent. It was only on 08.07.2004, at the insistence of their counsel that reply had been issued to state that dependants of employees who died prior to 01.01.1986 were not eligible to receive family pension.

Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in WP 14790/2005, which was allowed by an order dated 10.12.2007. The petitioner had made a representation in terms of the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Six months after the representation, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 16.06.2008. There was further exchange of correspondence and ultimately the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a complaint alleging contempt of court in February, 2009, and that matter was closed by an order dated 02.09.2009 of the division bench directing the petitioner to file a fresh petition and it is in that background, that the present petition is filed.

The claim of the petitioner is that this Court has already formed an opinion that family pension benefits cannot be denied to widows of the employees of the erstwhile KEB, even in cases, governed by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, as this Court had held that the widows of the deceased employees are eligible to get family pension from the Board and that similarly placed persons have indeed received the benefit and the respondent knowing fully well that the legal position has attained finality, by virtue of the above mentioned petition and several other petitions also being allowed on similar terms, the respondent denying the benefit to the petitioner is gross injustice and therefore seeks appropriate relief.

The respondent has filed its statement of objections and the learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that it is not denied as to the petitioner being a widow of erstwhile employee of the Amalgamated Electricity Company, Belgaum, which was acquired by the Government and handed over to KEB of which the present respondent is the successor in interest and it is also admitted that the claim for sanction of family pension having been rejected by the HESCOM, since the employee namely late Janardhana D. Chougale, husband of the petitioner was covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Pension/Family Pension Scheme of the KEB/HESCOM was not applicable to such employees who were members of the Provident Fund Scheme. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, has already sanctioned and paying the Family Pension vide PPO No. 11011/1993 at the rate of Rs. 529/- per month which has been enhanced from time to time by the Provident Fund Authorities in accordance with the Rules governing the same and that in Writ Petition No. 14790/2005, this Court has held that the petitioner was permitted to make a representation along with necessary documents and had directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders. The petitioner having made such a representation, the respondent has considered the same and has passed an order on 16.06.2008 indicating that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Family Pension in accordance with the Regulations and that as per order dated 09.04.1990, approval has been accorded for payment of Family Pension under the Board Employees Service Rules to members entitled of the families of the deceased employees, who were subscribers to the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, under the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and who died on or after 01.01.1989 and further to those who had exercised the option for the Pension Scheme contained in the BESR in lieu of Family Pension Scheme, 1971, under the relevant Act.

In view of the said Regulation, the petitioner was not entitled to receive the Family Pension under the KEB/HESCOM Rules, whereas she was getting a family pension under the PF Act from the PF authorities as already stated and that reliance placed on an order passed in Writ Petition No. 25639/1993 at Annexure-A to the petition, was the case of a deceased employee who had actually opted for the Family Pension Scheme under the Karnataka Electricity Board Service Regulations, whereas, in the present case, the deceased employee continued to be under the Employees'' Provident Fund Scheme of pension and the petitioner was receiving Family Pension in accordance with Provident Fund Rules and therefore, sought that the petition be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the stand of the respondents is not justified as this Court in Writ Petition No. 25639/1993 by its order dated 06.03.1996 has categorically held that an employee who had opted for the Provident Fund Scheme would not be disqualified from claiming the benefit of Family Pension. In the light of several judgments of this Court having been held to that effect, namely in Writ Petition No. 34608/1995, Writ Petition No. 27534/1995 and connected cases decided on 27.02.1990 and accordingly has held that the Family Pension due to the petitioner in that case should be paid with interest at 6% per annum from a particular period upto 31.12.1986 and at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 01.01.1987 onwards on the amount due to the petitioner at the end of each calendar year, more so, the determined shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of order failing which the petitioner was entitled to recover the amount so determined with interest at the rate of 18% per annum calculated from the date the period of three months fixed by the Court had expired and hence, he would submit that though it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said case was that of a employee who had opted for Family Pension Scheme and that the present petitioner''s husband had not opted for such a Scheme is not tenable, as this Court has already held that a person would be entitled to the benefit of Family Pension even if the employee had opted for the Provident Fund Scheme and in that view of the matter, if, the Family Pension under the Scheme is very beneficial to the petitioner, she had to be held entitled to the same, especially, in the evening of her life now that she has passed 63 years.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure-D dated 16.06.2008 is quashed. The respondent is directed to pay family pension and arrears thereof with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband till 31.12.1986 and at the rate of 12% per annum per annum for the period from 01.01.1987. The arrears shall be paid within three months from today, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to recover the entire amount so determined and payable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of default in terms of this order.